The Court of Session for Greater Bombay has dismissed the bail application of Vishal Rajnath Yadav, one of the accused in a complex case of cyber fraud and cheating. On April 29, 2024, Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne rejected Criminal Bail Application No. 958 of 2024, concluding that the applicant’s release at this stage would significantly hamper the ongoing investigation due to pending recovery and the involvement of other unarrested co-accused. The applicant was charged under stringent sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 419, 420 (Cheating), Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), and Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), along with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court’s decision was also heavily influenced by the finding that the accused has criminal antecedents and that similar offenses have been registered against him.
Details of the Sophisticated Rental Scam
The case originated from a report lodged by Niteshkumar S. Thakur with the Cyber Police Station, North Region (C.R. No. 40/2024). The informant was allegedly defrauded in a scheme related to obtaining premises for rent and sub-letting. The scam unfolded between August 2023 and February 2024. The informant initially contacted “Global Home Best Services” and interacted with an individual named Rakesh Singh. Later, through the “nobroker” website, the informant came into contact with a person identified as Shubham Mishra. Trusting these contacts, the informant deposited various amounts for obtaining premises on rent. The investigation revealed that “Shubham Mishra” was a fabricated persona used to deceive the victim. Over several months, the victim was duped of a substantial sum, totaling ₹22,31,000/-.
The investigation by the Cyber Police revealed a conspiracy involving multiple individuals. The illegally transferred amount was allegedly withdrawn by Accused No. 1, Hawshila @ Shiva Shivkumar Shukla, in coordination with other co-accused, including Rakesh Singh @ Shubham Mishra, Rakesh Mandal, Krishna Vishwakarma, Manish @ Upadhyay, and Yogesh Kharwat. The present applicant, Vishal Rajnath Yadav, was implicated in the scheme, with the prosecution alleging that he was instrumental in offering the premises on rent and inducing the informant to deposit the amount at the instance of the co-accused.
Grounds for Bail and Prosecution’s Objections
The applicant’s defense, represented by Advocate G.C. Vishwakarma / Adv. Pankaj Yadav, argued that Vishal Rajnath Yadav was innocent, falsely implicated, and had undergone sufficient custodial interrogation since his arrest on March 10, 2024. The defense claimed that the investigation was completed, that the applicant was the sole earning member of his family, and that he had no criminal antecedents. They prayed for bail, asserting that no purpose would be served by his continued detention until the conclusion of the trial.
The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, vehemently opposed the application. The prosecution’s written reply highlighted the scale of the financial fraud and the sophisticated conspiracy involved. Crucially, the prosecution pointed out that the investigation was still in progress, recovery was pending, and several other accused were yet to be arrested. The most damaging revelation for the applicant was the court’s finding, based on the prosecution’s submission, that “The accused has criminal antecedents. Such type of offences are registered against him.” The State argued that granting bail would lead to the applicant fleeing justice or tampering with prosecution evidence and witnesses.
The Judicial Rationale for Denial
After reviewing the application, the prosecution’s say, and the record, the Sessions Court concurred with the prosecution’s concerns. The court’s order explicitly detailed the nature of the offenses—involving forgery, conspiracy, and large-scale financial cheating—and the roles of the numerous accused.
The court gave precedence to three critical factors that militated against granting bail at this stage:
- Ongoing Investigation and Recovery: The court noted that the investigation was “in progress” and that “Recovery is pending.” In complex financial fraud cases, the recovery of defrauded funds is essential, and granting bail prematurely can jeopardize this effort.
- Unarrested Co-Accused: The fact that “Other accused are yet to be arrested” suggested that the applicant’s release could hinder the detection and apprehension of the remaining conspirators, potentially enabling them to evade justice.
- Criminal Antecedents: The court’s finding that the accused has “criminal antecedents” and similar offenses registered against him directly addressed the risk of recidivism, thereby justifying the continued curtailment of his liberty in the interest of public protection.
Based on these compelling reasons, the Sessions Court concluded that the applicant was “not entitled to be released on bail at this stage,” leading to the rejection of Criminal Bail Application No. 958 of 2024. This judgment underscores that in multi-accused, serious economic crimes, the stage of the investigation and the accused’s criminal history remain paramount considerations for the court when balancing liberty against the integrity of the criminal justice process.